Do educational institutions have a future?
Join Graham Attwell, Martin Weller (The Open University) and Rob Howe (University of Northampton), session facilitator, John Traxler, and other delegates in this year’s JISC online conference, Innovating e-Learning 2009 to debate the future of education on the 24th November.
As part of the pre-conference buzz, Martin Weller has produced a short video interviewing his ‘future self’. You can view Martin’s video at http://nogoodreason.typepad.co.uk/no_good_reason/2009/10/an-interview-with-the-future.html, but be warned, you may straight away want to make your own!
This year’s programme also includes keynotes by Charles Leadbeater (leading authority on innovation and strategy and former adviser to the government), Nigel Paine (freelance writer, organisational coach, broadcaster and former Head of People Development at the BBC), Helen Beetham and Rhona Sharpe (JISC Learner Experiences of e-Learning programme) and Peter Bradwell from the think tank, Demos.
To take part in these and other sessions at Innovating e-Learning 2009, register now at http://www.jisc.ac.uk/elpconference09. The conference has two themes and takes place online between 24-27 November. You decide when, where and how often you take part. The conference opens for reading and preparation on 17th November, and with a delegate fee of £50 and no need to travel, this is excellent value as well as great fun.
PS. Follow the pre-conference buzz on Twitter using the tag, #jiscel09. Keep in touch with what’s going on during the conference with James Clay (Gloucestershire College). There is an excellent Have-a-Go area as well this year, where you can try out new tools and technologies with the support of representatives from the RSCs and other JISC services and projects. Sounds good? Be quick to book your place and we’ll see you there!
ALT-C: OERs Matter Symposium
This is only my personal reflections of this symposium which was held on 8 Sept at ALT-C 2009. I have almost certainly missed things, but if I have missed things this is only due to my failings and not due to any deliberate intention to do so.
The symposium was chaired by Oleg Liber (Director of CETIS) and the symposium began with the pro’s and con’s of OER being outlined by a prestigious (and ficticious) panel:
-
Polly Pegler - Academic & an enthusiast for open educational resources
Prof. Ogden Wisden - Sceptical Academic
Will Pileham-Highe - Pro-Vice Chancellor
Joe Zawinul - civil servant representing the minister of BISCUIT (Business Colleges Universities and International Trade)
Quentinna Yan - Chinese secondary school teacher
Each member of the panel stated their take on OERs (well summarised here on the OERs Matter cloudworks page), then the debate was opened up to the audience.
The panel’s position statements proved to be a good starting point for the audience debate which followed. The audience debate further highlighted some of the difficult and thorny issues around OER, whilst (I felt) still retaining a sense of the future potential that OERs can offer.
The discussion began by considering the approaches to adoption of OER and it was suggested that it was a mistake to talk about the adoption of OER in ‘top-down’ approach terms (which many of the panel had done in their opening statements). It was argued that there was a real need to factor in a more ‘bottom-up’ approach and to understand the barriers associated with this, not limited to but including, unrealistic expectations on the amount of metadata that needs to be attached to an OER in order for it to be ready for release.
There was also a plea for more positive (carrot) arguments rather than negative (stick) arguments for the adoption for OER. Negative (e.g. saving money) ‘top-down’ approaches are unlikely to create motivated and enthusiastic adopters of OER - so more needs to be done on this.
Issues around the quality of content was also raised. It was agreed that this needs to be clearly articulated (without being imperialist), but also raises issues of trust - something that it was felt needed more exploration.
Picking up on this, another member of the audience added that the issue of reputation could do much to encourage the adoption of OER in a positive way. Currently there is no real percieved benefit to the individual to make content open - unlike the publishing model. If OERs had some kind of recogised peer-review type model then this is likely to increase the level of material that is made available in this way.
Another participant suggested at looking at what already works in terms of rating resources - e.g. amazon, the rating systems used by digg etc. This then raised the interesting question on who should rate the resources: academics or students? It was felt that they would be likely to rate quite differently, which would raise all kinds of issues (that time did not permit to be discussed further during the symposium).
The important role that repuposing plays in the advantages and benefits of OERs was also raised - it was pointed out that an open licence doesn’t just mean ‘free’ content, it can also mean content that can be used/repurposed and generally ‘messed about’.
However, deciding on the best granularity for a particular resource was considered to be one of the more difficult tasks as the context of a resource is likely to have big impact on its usability, depending on the end user of that resource. Resources for the independent/lifelong learner need to be strongly contextualised and accompanied with supporting material. If it is to be used as part of wider course, then items with much less context would be fine (and probably would be preferred).
Looking to the future, the debate also considered the changing nature of educational paradigms, in particular the impact of globalised education and how OERs can help support this. It was argued that there was a need to think more strategically, that even with the inherent difficulties of adopting OER that education as a whole could lose out if it did not grasp the opportunities provided.
So lots to take away from this session - not least the extent to which the current OER Programme pilots will go towards investigating more fully a large part of the issues raised during the debates.
“OER Matters - maybe been more negative talk than positive in this session - but more openness remains inevitable!”
(tweet from Patrick McAndrew made during the session)
Open Educational Resources - what’s going on?
The revolution continues apace - following the launch of the circular and related guidance in December, alongside the ongoing commentary in twitter and on blogs and the programme briefing day in January there is now a great deal of resources and guidance available for those currently writing to the 4th March deadline.
This is a joint JISC/Academy delivery of a HEFCE programme, to encourage the HE sector to release and share learning materials openly, for the benefit both of themselves (in terms of reputation, exposure and encouraging prospective student interest) and the world (regarding opportunities for the reuse of high quality learning materials).
We’re looking to help institutions and consortia put processes and policies in place to support the large scale and sustainable release of resources. So, it’s not about buying and relicensing stuff - more about helping people get over the “hump” of interia and changing the culture of the sector. Releasing valuable resources in their own way, suiting their own needs and benefiting the wider community.
And this first year is only the pilot - we are looking for evidence of what works, what are the approaches that are most effective in particular settings. Not in terms of institutional versus individual versus subject - in terms of common successful practices, key compontents of projects that have worked well. And an even bigger programme is intended to follow - learning from the trailblazing dynamism of the pilots and bringing OER into the mainstream.
Interest has been widespread - worldwide, even. A lot of eyes are focused on our HE sector regarding OER - in terms of pumping public resource into this agenda, and testing multiple models of release, we are leading the western world. And our (your) content is going to be out there. Via Jorum Open, via web pages and web 2.0 services. Making a case for the quality and innovation that the UK HE sector is respected for, and dragging this message into the 21st century worldwide learning economy.
Is this a programme or a revolution? From some angles it is hard to tell. Certainly we are taking a big risk, putting a marker down regarding our intentions and aspirations. And we are looking for a level of cultural change that we know is difficult to achieve and difficult to measure. Certainly some pilot projects will “fail”, but in terms of learning these are still successes as they help us on the road to understanding how to achieve our aims.
Report on timetabling and resource scheduling
The final report on timetabling and resource scheduling undertaken by Oakleigh Consulting Ltd is now available.
A full copy of the report can be downloaded from
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearningcapital/timetablingandresourceschedulingreport.pdf
The study was commissioned to produce scenarios and process models describing timetabling and resource scheduling processes, looking at where these interacted with other administrative process in an institution. It was also expected to summarise how well these processes are supported by currently available technology and to identify any problems or issues.
In addition JISC were looking for ways in which these processes could be improved and better supported by technology and to inform the future work of the JISC.
The study has been informed by wide consultation and a series of 8 regional consultative workshops, with representation from 59 institutions across further and higher education
sectors.
The report identified common approaches to timetabling and resource allocation; requirements identification, scheduling of activity, and location allocation. The report identifies and describes four model approaches to timetabling in institutions and examines the technical processes and requirements associated with each of these models.
The importance of the link between timetabling and curriculum design as well as its
importance in relation to work based learning and employer engagement are explored. It offers issues which could be relevant to be addressed by existing JISC projects in the Curriculum Design and Delivery Programmes and the Institutional Innovations Programmes.
The report “offers a useful profile of current practice, challenges, use of technology, and innovation throughout the HE and FE sectors, which can be used as a benchmark summary and act as a ‘menu’ of approaches and possible use of policy, technology, process, and people ‘levers’ to develop current practice”
The report provides a set of building blocks for successful practice and suggests that these could be refined into guidance materials for institutions and suggests the need for a community to share practice and issues around timetabling and resource scheduling. We’d welcome your opinion as to the benefits of guidance materials and a community of practice to institutions.
JISC encourages you to download and read this report and welcomes comments or questions relating to this report.